Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I am one of numerous objective thinkers, and my type of evidence is perfectly adequate as has been explained to you by many folks. You don't like it, but my evidence is still adequate.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Baha'i and Messengers
- Thread starter ppp
- Start date
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
You can't test reality, I mean, religious and spiritual things. They are beyond that which is seen.
They are the unseen Reality.
“Wert thou to ponder in thine heart, from now until the end that hath no end, and with all the concentrated intelligence and understanding which the greatest minds have attained in the past or will attain in the future, this divinely ordained and subtle Reality, this sign of the revelation of the All-Abiding, All-Glorious God, thou wilt fail to comprehend its mystery or to appraise its virtue...... This confession of helplessness which mature contemplation must eventually impel every mind to make is in itself the acme of human understanding, and marketh the culmination of man’s development.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 165-166
I personally see the Bible is a sure spiritual guide. It is not a history book, it is not a scientific disclosure, it is for spiritual growth.
Regards Tony[/QUOTE]
Humans are a type of animal. Mutations occur within species. And humans are homo sapiens sapiens, and have only existed for about 150,000 years. There is a long line of hominid species that came before homo sapiens sapiens.
What is interesting is how human embryos look much like the embryos of other animals.
The answer is a whole lot of DUH!!!
But it created a new one: show the God it refers to exists outside of human imagination.
This is something none of you are able to do, so the quote is not any sort of truth. At best not is a claim, and opens the door to those of us who want real answers to hard questions that you can't deliver.
It is a serious error to refer to gods in religious debate with skilled thinkers because you will be called out. And you will have no answer.
Sure we can, we can test whether an idea is fact or imagined.
hat you probably mean is you don't want your religious ideas tested.
It's called the imaginary or fantasy.
How can it be reality when you can't confirm it's real?
Audie
Veteran Member
Humans are a type of animal. Mutations occur within species. And humans are homo sapiens sapiens, and have only existed for about 150,000 years. There is a long line of hominid species that came before homo sapiens sapiens.
What is interesting is how human embryos look much like the embryos of other animals.
The answer is a whole lot of DUH!!![/QUOTE]
That Abdul sure uses a lot of words to say next to nothing.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
How can you test religious beliefs and prove they are false?
I cannot prove they are true but you cannot prove they are false.
Reality simply exists. Being able to confirm reality is not what makes it reality.
He also wrote:
"Words have to be next to each other to mean something, and not be next to nothing."
The rules of logic don't require that. Proving a negative, as you suggest here, is not efficient or practical or reliable or possible in some cases. So the rules in logic are that all propositions are considered false until there is sufficient evidence to prove them true.
In casual debate a proposition can be argued to be likely true. As for gods, they are not even in a category that is plausible and consistent with facts and reality, that being: supernatural.
That's why rational thinkers reject claims of gods existing. You can't prove it, therefore we reject it.
So the imaginary is reality to your definition?
No. What is real is what CAN be verified as real. The imaginary cannot be verified, so cannot be claimed or categorized as real.
ppp
Well-Known Member
That is an interesting interpretation of what I said. But incorrect.
- Sometime true vs Always true. If Organization X has a set of ethics whereby they must feed the hungry, plant trees, teach CPR, backhand their children, bake muffins, and recue puppies, then I am not going to ignore the 'backhand your children' rule, even if the believers only do it sometimes. Not even if only a minority of them do it sometimes.
- I don't judge the validity of any god's existence based upon the activities of the people that believe said god exists. I judge the existence of a god based on the believers demonstrated ability to know or be able to know what they are talking about. Period. If you can demonstrate your claim through evidence and sound reasoning, then I will believe you, no matter how high or low my opinion of your god might be.
- When I assess the morality or immorality of a god, I am assessing the character's actions as depicted by the believers, or by their sacred texts. I am not assuming that said god actually exists or does not. As for instance, a god that demands virgin sacrifices is an evil god, even if it is just a product of someone's imagination.
I said absolutely nothing about presenting the full truth of any god. Let me rephrase.
- No religion claiming to know the tiniest aspect of God has been able to demonstrate that they know or are capable of knowing what they claim about God.
- No religion claiming to know the tiniest aspect of God has been able to demonstrate that they know or are capable of knowing that any other religion's claims about God are false.
Of course. I do. All the time. I hold myself to the same standards. And when I or someone else discovers that I am wrong, I am embarrassed to various degrees, but I am also fascinated to track how I got to that particular misconception.
For instance, when I was 27, I was reading a set of mystery novels where the main characters were Jewish. And as I read thing seemed off to me. Because growing up Baptist in a small southern town, I was taught that Judaism is just Christianity without Christ. I was stunned at just how wrong that was, and was fascinated by the fact that even though I had left Christianity over a decade before that I carried that misconception along with me.
Or when I was 21 lying in bed with a lover exchanging stories about our youth, that I told a story about doing an insect presentation in the 3rd grade at the local university. I had assumed at 9 or 10 that I was presenting to a science class. It wasn't till I unpacked that memory and told the story that I realized that it was an early childhood education class. That still give me the giggles.
Preconceptions and assumptions require diligent deep scrutiny.
Last edited by a moderator:
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
That is not useful because what is considered 'sufficient evidence' is only a matter of personal opinion.
Not plausible to you.
Of course nothing supernatural is consistent with facts, because it can never be proven, but that does not mean it does not exist, because proof is not what makes anything exist. God either exists or not and whether we can prove that has no bearing on whether God exists or not because God could exist and not provide any proof.
No, that is not rational. Rational thinkers know that if God existed there would be no proof, and there might not even be any evidence, although I believe there is.
From my thread:
Atheists: What would be evidence of God’s existence?
As I see it there are only three possibilities:
1. God exists and there is evidence so we should look for the evidence.
2. God exists but there is no evidence so there is nothing to look for.
3. God does not exist and that is why there is no evidence.
That is illogical because it only applies to the material reality and it assumes that there is nothing beyond the physical reality.
Proof is not what makes anything real. Reality simply exists.
Real: actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=real+means
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Yeah, things will take their own course. If Covid goes, Allah will send some other problem (like what people of Tonga are facing today). Allah does not seem to be bountiful and merciful, he seems to be quite vicious, to believers as also to non-believers. Remember Aceh?
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
@CG Didymus , People can make the change even without religion. Religion creates a dependency which is harmful. The dependency has side-effects of religious extremism (Bahaollah is God's messenger for the current age lasting 50,000 years. He is this and he is that). It is like a soother given to the child. When the child grows up, it is many a times difficult to make the child loose the habit.
Truthseeker
Non-debating member when I can help myself
Yeah, you have a point about a cell being too complex to just come into being from a brew of organic molecules.
Sorry I misunderstood about the parallel evolution thing.
1. As you shouldn’t. However, you should be cautious not to superimpose what one thing says onto something else that says differently.
2. Therein lies the question. That word. Evidence. I ask again in reply: what sort of evidence are you looking for in assessing the validity of a metaphysical or philosophical claim such as ‘God exists’ or conversely ‘God does not exist’. As to the use of sound reasoning, I agree with you here. The use of reason is, really, the only means whereby we can answer this question. Anything else is either self-insisting or will render inconclusive results.
3. Ah. That’s telling. Can you say that you’ve read Bahá’í texts? Additionally, as I’ve aforementioned, Bahá’ís have a very layered conception of who God is, so approaching it is not as simple as merely saying the general Abrahamic stuff.
I think you might’ve misunderstood what it was I was saying. Whatever the case is, I don’t fault you. Perhaps, I could be a bit clearer in communicating.
1. Various religions have vastly different conceptions of God. As such, we human beings cannot ascertain who or what God is for certain. All we can say is that we believe in such-and-such (or conversely, that we don’t). To address your first point directly, though, we’re talking about a conceptual or metaphysical reality, not an empirical one. Additionally, simply because one person cannot make sense of something does not mean in the slightest that it’s not logically valid in an absolute way. It’ll make sense to someone else. It’s all in how a person chooses to view it.
2. Bahá’ís do not claim that our conception(s) of God is the truth of the matter. Connected to this, we neither claim to possess the only valid conception compared to other religions. Every religion (indeed, every individual person) has their own understanding of the Divine, yet the case is that none of them fully reflect the truth.
Another question I have is what does rational justification look like to you? What questions would you ask us Bahá’ís to arrive at some kind of conclusion as to whether or not our concept of God makes sense to you?
Indeed. This is absolutely true.
I get where you’re coming from here, dude. It reminds me of my own childhood days. I would love to ask questions and debate with other kids or my siblings on different things. Whenever I discovered I was wrong, I would feel very embarrassed, especially as I tended to argue from what I didn’t know about or didn’t understand fully (if at all).
As for my own investigation into different religions, there are lots of things I still don’t know about plenty of them, and about which I do my best to keep an open mind on and try to adjust my understandings accordingly.
Last edited:
Audie
Veteran Member
No prob., we all misunderstand things.
Audie
Veteran Member
Deep insight